Bridget Prentice: I am publishing a response to the consultation paper "The Debt Claim Process: helping people in debt to engage with the problem".
	This was a formal consultation exercise undertaken by Her Majesty's Courts Service to report the findings of a pre-action protocol pilot and to seek views on other proposals for increasing debtor engagement and streamlining court processes.
	The paper discussed the following options:
	Do nothing—simply retain the current requirements.
	Introduction and operation of the PAN—this would require all creditors to issue a pre-action notice generated by the court. Where there was no response to this the creditor would be free to start proceedings.
	Strengthening of the current civil procedure rules requirements—this option discussed whether the existing requirements should be extended to include: provision of information about negotiating with the creditor; how payment could be made; sources of free independent advice and assistance; and time to obtain advice.
	Introduction of a debtor protocol—introducing a requirement that debtors must respond to claims or face possible cost sanctions.
	The introduction of a claims payments order—this would allow creditors to move directly to the 'enforceable order' stage when a debtor failed to respond after mandatory pre-action steps had been followed. This measure was designed to target the 'won't pay' group more directly.
	The response rate to the consultation was low—around 8 per cent.—possibly due to the number of times these topics had previously been aired. However, it was clear that there was little support from any of the sectors for the introduction of the PAN, a debtor protocol, or the CPO. There was however, a general support for strengthening the existing requirements covering pre-action behaviour in the CPR. This will now be considered by the Civil Justice Council (CJC).
	Copies of the response paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are also available on the internet at http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/cp2207.htm.

Bridget Prentice: I have today laid before Parliament the Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards code of practice, along with the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
	The deprivation of liberty safeguards were inserted into the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by the Mental Health Act 2007. They protect against the arbitrary detention of people who lack the capacity to consent to the arrangements made for their care or treatment and who need to be deprived of their liberty, in their own best interests and for their own safety, in either hospitals or care homes. They will rectify the breach of Article 5 of the ECHR identified by the ECtHR in HL v UK 2004—the 'Bournewood' case.
	Section 42 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires the Lord Chancellor to issue a code of practice to provide information and guidance on how the safeguards will work in practice. A draft version of the code was published for full public consultation in 2007. One hundred and ten individuals and organisations responded and many of the suggestions and comments received have been incorporated into the final version.
	The Act requires a range of people to 'have regard' to the code, for example anyone acting in a professional or paid role in relation to someone who lacks capacity, but it particularly focuses on those who have a duty of care to a person who lacks the capacity to consent to the care or treatment that is being provided, where that care or treatment may include the need to deprive the person of their liberty.
	The code is intended to provide valuable information and guidance to all those covered by the Act and has been written to meet the needs of this wide and varied audience.